Immigration Lolz

Imagine, if you would, the phrase ‘neener neener neener,’ sung to the tune of the Hallelujah Chorus…
Presiding Bishop H. David Burton:“Our presence here testifies to the fact that we are appreciative of what has happened in the Legislature this session. We feel the Legislature has done an incredible job on a very complex issue.”

Arturo Morales-LLan, head of Legal Immigrants for Immigration Law Enforcement:“David Burton has a right to be present or to be involved in any affairs concerning the faith, but he does not speak for the First Presidency.”

Ron Mortensen, an ardent opponent of the legislation:“I am shocked that the church would support a bill that literally sacrifices 50,000 Utah children, who are the victims of identity theft, for the benefit of illegal aliens.”

I’m a little out of touch on this issue but is this an example of “conservative/orthodox” Latter-day Saints that are criticizing the Presiding Bishop of the Church because of the Church’s support of a moderate and sensitive approach on immigration?

As a libertarian Mormon, I think we should “literally” abandon both the Democratic and Republican parties. Neither has done much good in a very long time. Both have become burdensome on the population with their pet extremism and regulatory coercion.

John f, I would say it’s an example of LDS members who sit on the far right side of the US political spectrum being shocked that the Church would take a more liberal and compassionate stance on an issue that affects many of its Latino members. Maybe it will cause those same members to reexamine their political stance on the issue – that a middle ground is necessary and appropriate.

While I happen to agree with the Church on this one, I am still not super comfortable with it being involved in politics; maybe we can call it a draw now? No? Maybe after Church members have been encouraged to collect millions of dollars in support of immigration reform–that can be our last foray into politics, can’t it?

ESO, agreed. I would prefer that this kind of advocacy was not necessary, but sadly, the Church needed to act to pull its own members (which most of the Legislature are) out of their backwards views on immigration. Though there would be a sort of poetic comeuppance to it all, I hope that it will not require strong-arming the rest of the Utah membership to support this particular piece of legislation.

The church hasn’t been shy in the past about where it stands on this issue. The church knowingly sends out undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to serve missions within the U.S. The church has openly supported the principles in the Utah Compact. Those who are surprised by this last step, and those who are still in denial about it, have either not been paying attention, or believed that the church would stay quiet on the issue. It’s good to see the church take a bit of a stand here. It’s just a shame the members in Utah needed the church’s prodding to make the right choice.

Ah, Jettboy, but many Mormons on the left are used to accepting that their politics are sometimes at odds with the church (as is their right) and tend not to herald their position as the “faithful Mormon” position. Mormons on the right — particularly those who find themselves in internet groupings which do herald their own, let’s say unwavering, faithfulness — may have to learn to live with the same dissonance. That’s fine by the way.

I just re-read Mortensen’s statement and realized that he is claiming that identity thieves target children. This seems very bizarre. Don’t they usually go after people with established credit histories?

Catching up on the Utah legislature’s efforts, it looks like they passed three immigration bills. If I’m off on any of this, please clarify, anyone who’s being paying attention.

HB 497: A lighter version of Arizona’s SB 1070.

HB 116: Basically a petition that the federal government waive employment eligibility laws in Utah. Prety much zero chance of implementation.

HB 46: Some stuff about forming compacts with other states and a memorandum of understanding with Nuevo Leon.

It seems like a whole lot of nothing, so I guess the politics of the thing is what is of interest to Bishop Burton more than any effects of the laws themselves. My initial takeaway lesson is that the image of Utah is a matter of special concern to the Church, and these gestures are believed to help that image. Putting out a sense of niceness is important. Lessons regarding immigration policy, if there are any, are harder to discern given the overall nullity of HB 116 and HB 46 and the similarity of HB 497 with Arizona’s much reviled law.

As someone who has dealt with the identity theft issue among illegal aliens, the most common “theft” is to use the identifying information of deceased children. And that use is not limited to one state, most commonly I have seen information from California. The “50,000 Utah children” sounds like wild hyperbole to me.

And even though Utah has now apparently surrendered in the fight against illegal foreign invaders, we can take comfort in the fact that the GOP Mormons in the Arizona legislature are still fighting the good fight. In fact, they have doubled down on the kerrazy by attempting to pass a bill that would assure that no more Kenyan Muslims without birth certificates ever get on the ballot.

Well, something my fellow bankruptcy attorneys in Colorado have seen a lot of, is immigrant families trading off kids, or loaning them out to relatives just for income tax filings – so those other households can take full advantage of child tax credits and such.

We’re calling it the “new welfare.”

So I suppose the statement may have been directed at the idea that illegal families are get tax credits that are meant to be going towards other kids.

I actually think the difference between Arizona’s 1070 and Utah’s 497 is pretty significant and more than just a “lighter version.” Arizona’s bill allows police to demand paperwork from and detain anyone they reasonably suspect is illegal, which opens the door to racism and pretty random illegal searches and seizures. Utah’s law only allows those arrested of a serious felony to be checked for immigration status. Utah’s bill takes away the randomness, the illegal detentions, and the possible nefarious motives.

Speaking of stone age conservatives, I have a question about our favorite state senator from West Jordan. Did Senator Buttars line up with the church on these bills and vote for them? If so, I take it as a sure sign of the Apocalypse.

I’m with the church on this one, but I don’t like the schadenfreude. If we’re going to leave room for active and believing members who, say, were in favor gay marriage in spite of the Church’s position to the contrary, surely we can leave room for active and believing members who are in favor of more stringent immigration enforcement in spite of the Church’s (apparent) position to the contrary. That is, I hope the left does not turn on the right with unfair arguments about not being in tune with the Brethren the way some of the right did to the left during, say, Prop. 8.

re # 25, if that were to happen I imagine it would be because of what continually happens on any other issue — so it would be a sort of what goes around comes around thing. But I don’t think that is going to happen.

jimbob,
As a right-leaning Mormon and as the author of the OP, let me tell you that it has nothing to do with what you describe in #25. No one on the left (that I am aware of) is clamoring for opponents of immigration to have their temple recommends revoked, or suggesting that it’s impossible to sustain the Brethren and also prefer closed borders. This is plain old fun-poking at a group of people who are used to citing the Brethren as the basis for their political preferences.

In response to jimbob, this was just a kind of lighthearted post, releasing some tension from all the previous turn-in-your-TR stress. I don’t really have plans for an ongoing campaign of grinding the right’s faces in the dust over their support of strict immigration schemes.

To continue my own #33: Scott and I both live in California and survived the (to some extent ongoing) painful divisions that occurred between members during Prop8. Nobody has less desire to slash a bunch of new wounds of that sort than us.

“This is plain old fun-poking at a group of people who are used to citing the Brethren as the basis for their political preferences.”

How far is “Neener, neener, the prophet is in my corner on this one!” from “You’re out of line with the Brethren and are in need of repentance,” Scott? I’m happy you see a distinction between the two, but I wouldn’t expect the average member to do so.

jimbob, the underlying message of the OP seems to be “if it’s wrong for liberal orthodox Mormons to disagree with the Church about Proposition 8, it is also wrong for conservative orthodox Mormons to disagree with the Church about immigration”.

I especially like Arturo Morales-Llan (couldn’t it be “Flan”?) telling the world whether Bishop Burton speaks for the first presidency. It would have been better, though if he’d explained where he got his special commission to speak for them.

How far is “Neener, neener, the prophet is in my corner on this one!” from “You’re out of line with the Brethren and are in need of repentance,” Scott? I’m happy you see a distinction between the two, but I wouldn’t expect the average member to do so.

That says more about your opinion of the average member than it does about the OP, I’m afraid.

Also, I think that Ron Mortensen just fundamentally misunderstands what the Church is trying to do here. The Church doesn’t care about immigration in reality–this was just a wonderful opportunity for the parents of 50,000 children to be tried even as Abraham was.

“#25 would be far more effective if it came from someone with centrist or left leanings as opposed to say, jimbob.”

I consider myself centrist, Steve. Right of center, but closer to center than to the right. As I noted originally, for example, I like the church’s stance on this immigration issue. But more to the point, why should my political leanings matter?

“That says more about your opinion of the average member than it does about the OP, I’m afraid.”

That’s a little too easy, Scott, and I think you know it. This blog spent the better part of 2008 explaining how a member could both be believing and be against the Church’s position in Prop. 8. There was post after post expounding on this nuanced view. To tell me now that that distinction is so self-evident in this context that I’m indirectly calling the membership of the church stupid for not immediately grasping it is a little unfair.

“So rich. I mean, the OP is great, but the whiney, pouty paranoia of some of the comments is, just, priceless.”

“This blog spent the better part of 2008 explaining how a member could both be believing and be against the Church’s position in Prop. 8. There was post after post expounding on this nuanced view. ”

Ridiculous, Jimbob. Show me those posts.

Why should your political leanings matter? Are you seriously asking? Here’s why: because your comments are transparently self-interested. If you were truly a centrist or left of center, a plea for civility and restraint from the left would be preaching against type and a noble call. As it is, however, your comments are just self-serving — and consistently so. Maybe not whiney, pouty paranoia… but then again, maybe so.

I think the difference is that Conservatives don’t consider this a theological issue (perhaps ethical) as more than a political one. There is no clear cut teaching of the prophets and apostles about immigration like there is marriage between a man and a woman. As such, I believe the schadenfreude is mostly in the wishes of the left. If you notice, Ron Mortensen’s response is completely political and not with any theological arguments advising how it goes against the teachings of Jesus or whatever for showing support for the bill.

The main argument from the right is, how can the Church be for this bill when there is no theological reason to get involved? Now, the argument can be that anti-immigration bills can be anti-missionary. Fine enough. But, more than one conservative has questioned the LDS Church about missionary practices as explained by #11 Tim, at least for those entering the U.S. It isn’t new enough territory to cause dissonance reflection. This could change if the leadership says something about immigration in General Conference.

I think that is what a LOT of “liberal” Mormons ask themselves every time they go to church and are made to feel unwelcome among the saints because their political views might differ in some ways from the political opinions of some Church leaders.

This blog spent the better part of 2008 explaining how a member could both be believing and be against the Church’s position in Prop. 8.

Steve beat me to the punch in # 51 — I was going to say that I don’t remember those posts. This seems to me like an instance of attribution or projection. I can imagine there may have been any number of comments in 2008 conceivably along those lines but I’m not entirely sure about that either.

However, I think a lot of people around here, liberal or conservative, would agree in principle that “a member could both be believing and be against the Church’s position in Prop. 8”, or perhaps rather “a member can be both believing and against the Church’s political involvement in Prop. 8”.

I think that’s consistent with the political neutrality statements that are frequently read across pulpits in LDS wards and with specific guidance that was given during Prop 8 that people would not be subject to discipline for taking a different view on Prop 8.

I think the difference is that Conservatives don’t consider this a theological issue (perhaps ethical) as more than a political one. There is no clear cut teaching of the prophets and apostles about immigration like there is marriage between a man and a woman.

I hear the 11th article of faith trotted out all the time with reference to illegal immigrants. They’re illegals, therefore, not following the “honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law” part of things.

Jimbob, start with every single comment you’ve made on this thread. Then go backwards from there, to every single comment you’ve made at BCC, ever. I paid you a compliment, by the way — you’re consistent. You’re welcome.

If it makes you feel better, it is the nature of all people to be self-serving in their remarks. You’re in good company with the rest of us, and you shouldn’t really feel very offended (in case you were).

Thanks, Steve. I’m glad to hear it isn’t personal with you. Because, you know, I was starting to feel hurty inside.

I will say this, though: given that our entire relationship, such as it is, is online and issue specific, I’d suggest that you don’t know me well enough to tell me where I fall politically. Like yourself, though, I am a bit of a contrarian, by which I mean that I usually take the argument no one else seems to be advancing. Given that this blog is largely frequented by liberal members, I suspect that’s what you’re seeing as much as anything else.

As for you (and john f.) calling BS on me, here is a sampling of posts from 2008 which either explicitly or implicitly refer to the point I made above:

jimbob,
I think that I know the archives of BCC better than pretty much everyone else on the planet. You came up with 5 posts from 2008 and one from late 2010. I could have produced those same posts without much effort, as well as a couple more than you missed.

However, none of this refutes the BS call, because here’s the statement you offered:

This blog spent the better part of 2008 explaining how a member could both be believing and be against the Church’s position in Prop. 8. There was post after post expounding on this nuanced view.

Let’s assume that the posts you cite all say what you say they do (this is debatable), and let’s assume that you also found the additional few I would say could possibly be construed as saying what you suggest. That gives us a great big 8 posts.
In 2008, there were 745 posts at BCC, meaning that your sample (plus my additions) represents 1.07% of the total posts at BCC.

BTW, those on both the left and right who think the Church should “stay out of politics” are generally hypocrites because they only say this when the Church takes a position against the one they like. They are also consistently disappointed because the Church has always been involved in politics and always will be.

The moral worth about all human is one of those issues that is one of morality, but it must also be political. Like Jettboy, I do not want them to stay out of politics, I just want them to agree with me.

Additionally, I do not think that those who disagree with the Church on immigration are bad Mormons, in the way that I think members should have been able to disagree with the Church on a range of political issues. However, I am not in the business of defining people out of Mormonism. Hmmm, who would do such a such thing. Wait…now I remember.

Scott, I apologize for my use of slightly hyperbolic language. I’m sure I’m the first here to engage in such.

Nonetheless, your math is not particularly relevant to my original position, which we keep getting farther and farther away from. My point was that it takes a fair amount of discussion and nuance to explain how someone can both be faithful and believing and still disagree with the Brethren on a given issue. If BCC had committed even one post to that fact in the midst of Prop. 8–and as you seem to admit, it committed several–then I consider those posts as evidence of that complexity.

All that said, I think I’ll bow out now. I promised myself years ago I would never again waste the amount of billable time I’ve wasted today on meaningless bon mots with Steve Evans, and yet here I am again.

Sounds so … Star Chamber. Sounds like a bad vampire movie. I wish we could call them “The Brothers”, instead. That may be some lefty sensibility showing. But, it better captures what they are and how we are to support them, I think. Pretty much unconditionally, and with love. But also with the acknowledgement of the humanness that they so often claim for themselves. They have a very difficult job, and they have often made mistakes. But if they make another mistake, and they will, I will forgive them. My trust in them – that is to say in the idea that they approach their extraordinarily difficult callings in good faith – is pretty much unqualified. ~

“The main argument from the right is, how can the Church be for this bill when there is no theological reason to get involved? ”

Jettboy, maybe the church believes there is a theological reason to get involved?

“Additionally, I do not think that those who disagree with the Church on immigration are bad Mormons, in the way that I think members should have been able to disagree with the Church on a range of political issues. However, I am not in the business of defining people out of Mormonism. Hmmm, who would do such a such thing. Wait…now I remember.”

And once again Chris H. reminds me why I always vote for him as commenter of the year. Lacking restraint maybe, but commenter of the year.

Natasha, since we all know that Canadians live in mud huts and ride polar bears, I think it is just a given that all y’all are filthy. But riding polar bears is also pretty sexy, so you’ve got that going for you, too. (I think I will suggest that my wife start riding a polar bear to work.)

To jimbob’s claim that his point was not that BCC is full of liberal Mormons who do nothing more than talk about Prop 8… I’m not really sure what his point was. I certainly recall having many conversations on BCC since I started commenting here that had nothing to do with the nuances of being a faithful member of the Church while disagreeing with the GAs on a political issue. However, I will concede that blogging Mormons tend to be more willing to grant nuance on just about everything than non-blogging Mormons, but that may just be because the topic of nuance tends to arise online more than it does in SS or PH/RS classes.

Anyway, I love the claim that the church leaders are sacrificing children from Utah for the sake of illegal immigration. It definitely kept me amused while waiting around in a library for several hours today!

By the end, I’m pretty sure my point was that I have a better-looking dog and larger biceps than either Steve or Scott, but that Scott was probably better at math, and that Steve had a more compelling animal magnetism. Or something like that.

jimbob,
If encouraging people to not engage in uninformed blanket condemnations strikes you as an anti-prop 8 post, you may be more liberal than you think. Also, if a post asking people to come up with good reasons why the brethren took a stand on prop 8 strikes you as an anti-prop 8 post, then I question your ability to process English successfully. Hopefully, that,at least, removes two posts from your condemnatory list.

The whole point of Kaimi’s same-sex-marriage-and-hypocrisy post was to refute media talking heads and others who were saying that it is hypocritical for the church to support Prop8. So that one very straightforwardly doesn’t belong on jimbob’s list either.

Jimbob,
BCC bloggers didn’t need to make the case that one could be a faithful Church member and oppose Prop 8, because an Apostle stated it explicitly. Furthermore, the post I wrote which you linked to did not make that case, but rather made the case that Church leaders could be right in opposing SSM in California even if you weren’t convinced by the sociological arguments put forth in defense of the merits of that position. This site was one of the most Prop 8 free sites in the blogernaccle during the 2008 election. You’re just straight up wrong.

I am writing this comment in further support of Scott B.’s comment # 71 which shot down jimbob’s claim that BCC

“spent the better part of 2008 explaining how a member could both be believing and be against the Church’s position in Prop. 8. There was post after post expounding on this nuanced view. ”

The church did not involve itself in prop 8 until Jun 29, and the election was in November. So, just looking at the list of posts in the list that jimbob produced in comment 68, we see only two which fall inside those dates.

I know that JimBob’s perceptions about BCC’s nefarious homosexualist agenda are true, and I hereby accuse Scott B. of removing all evidence from the Archives that could illustrate the reality of the plot.

Yeah thanks, but it was better before you edited out the part where I called for all Mormon men to temporarily “gay marry” their HT companions until they’ve officially finished their monthly rounds. You censorious bastard.

At the risk of repetition, let me recap how we got here, because I think it lends perspective to many of the recent comments:

My point in No. 25 was that if there is room in the Church for the faithful left who disagree with one of the Church’s political positions, there should be room for the faithful right who disagree with the Church’s positions as well (really, that’s my only salient point for this thread). Scott’s responsive position was that left-leaning members weren’t likely to be antagonistic to right-leaning members in the same way some conservative members were in Prop. 8, making my original point irrelevant. I mentioned that part of his OP could be read to suggest the opposite. His response was that I wasn’t reading him charitably, and explained why. I did not disagree with that explanation, but told him that I thought that level of nuance might be lost on the average member. He thought that his position was clear, and that as such I was possibly casting aspersions as to the general membership’s overall intelligence. I responded that I believed that posts had been made on BCC in 2008 on this very subject, which would belie that Scott’s position was so straightforward that it did not need any further explanation. Steve then asked me to cite some examples.

(I made a good-faith effort to accurately and succinctly represent Scott’s and Steve’s positions here. If they disagree, they’re welcome to re-state.)

I apologize for repeating all that, but I do it so that I can make clear that the last half-dozen permas who chose to chime in to tell me that I couldn’t be more wrong as to what their posts meant can be completely correct in their assessments, but at best all that would really mean would be that I was wrong as to a tangent to a tangent to my main point. Moreover, as I explained above, the tangent they are expounding on isn’t an issue that I care a lot about, because one can decide for him or herself whether Scott’s position is nuanced enough to be possibly illusive to the average member simply by reading it and judging it for him or herself. That is, a similar post in 2008 on BCC would, at best, only be useful in proving my point, but certainly not dispositive.

With all that as a backdrop, and given that everyone I’m responding to in the last half-dozen comments is a perma, if they are adamant that no one has ever posted at BCC about what it means being a faithful member against Prop. 8, then I’ll concede as much for the purpose of argument–not because I agree with all the last six or so comments, but because, again, it’s not really central the point I care about. But there seems to be a lot of missing the forest for the trees in the last several comments describing what these certain posts really meant. That said, if I’m partially or fully to blame for that, then this is me doing my best to make myself clear now.

Finally, I want to mention that I disagree with people for a living, and I know what spirited debate is. And I’m a big boy who’s been commenting in the bloggernaccle for a fair amount of time and who has had his run-ins with various bloggers. Moreover, I’m sure I haven’t been as politic as I could be in the tone of my comments in this thread. But I’ve not said anything close to the outright personal insults I’ve read today, like “I question your ability to process English successfully.” Nor have I described anyone as being full of “whiney [sic], pouty paranoia.” And that’s putting to one side the comments which were deleted, some of which seemed decidedly personal. So, while I’m not asking you for any sympathy, I guess I would ask for a little more civility.

jimbob,
My argument isn’t that no-one ever posted about Prop-8 or that no-one ever posted arguing that one can be a faithful member and be against prop-8. My argument was that the two posts of mine that you chose weren’t illustrative of your point. (I should also say being called “liberal” is something of a sort point with me (not that I don’t lean left, because I do, but because I consider myself something of a centrist, as do you)).

Your original argument does argue if there can be a faithful disagreement on the left then there can be a faithful disagreement on the right is well taken. However, it is also contextless, because folks on the left have often been told that there cannot be faithful disagreement on the left historically. The bloggernacle used to debate on occasion whether or not one can be a Mormon and a Democrat (until we all got sick of it), but I’ve never ever heard someone question whether one can be a Conservative or a Republican or a Libertarian and a Mormon (at least, not along those lines). It’s self-evident.

Finally, both Scott and Cynthia admit that they are being small minded and petty in the Opening Post (adults generally only apply neener-neener ironically nowadays, especially if sung to the tune of Hallelujah). I don’t think that it is because they want people to leave the church over this, but because they have been predicting this reaction under these circumstances for a long time now and it feels nice to be right. I’ve definitely been small-minded and petty on this thread, but that’s how I am on most threads, because that’s how I often am. Repentance, here I come.

Here is the thing I have noticed. Folks are more likely to demand a big-tent when they find themselves outside the tent. I’m personally all for a big tent. Just don’t be the camel that tries to push me out once you get back in.

Jimbob is taking something of a beating, so I’ll chime in to say that I think he made some legitimate points. And instead of legitimately debating him, most of you chose to ridicule him and take positions that I think are incredibly convenient.

Also, before you make any wild assumptions about me, I support homosexual marriage.

Are bloggernacle discussions about immigration going the way of gay-marriage debates? I think we are a bit worn out and this may be part of why we so easily get off-topic. At some point the arguments of my foes (Jettboy) depress me because I know their views are shared by most people who I go to church with.

I’m sure I’m not supposed to be laughing at the thought of 50,000 literal child sacrifices confusion. I’m weak. I admit it.

I think it’s healthy to have the conservatives be out of step with “the brothers”. Perhaps it will encourage people to really think about their position…even if they keep their position, at least it will be thoughtfully considered.

I understand Jimbob’s point. It’s true the blaggernacle is more liberal leaning. It’s true there has been discussion about prop 8 and how differing views fit in the mormon world. why is that? Is it because liberals are lovingly accepted in their wards?

Maybe the neener hallelujah isn’t the model of adult discussion, but surely immitation is the sincerist form of flattery. So maybe it’s really flattery…or something.

I really wish this thread would have stuck with the immigration issue. Unfortunately, it seems that those uncomfortable with the church’s position on immigration have done their best to turn this into a discussion of Proposition 8, like Scott B. just mentioned.

Personally, I think the church’s stance on immigration is at least as important as the church’s stance on gay marriage, if only because it asks more church members to reevaluate their own position on political matters than Proposition 8 ever did.

Of course, as has been stated earlier, church members are free to have their own opinions on such matters. Just don’t tell the rest of us we’re apostate because of our views on matters such as gay marriage when you yourself don’t like what the church is doing and saying in regards to immigration. And be especially careful when criticizing members for their take on things where the church’s stance is less clear (such as evolution).

I am a pretty sad case. Maybe I have listened to too much Rage Against The Machine, but I think it is good to know who ones enemies are. This is not a matter of me being a D and others being R’s. It is a matter of deep moral and theological disagreement.

I am not the Good Samaritan or the hypocritical priest. I am the thug leaving bloodied conservatives to die on the side of road (not really, but I thought it sounded fun).

Well, I’m a libertarian, so as long as you would bind up my wounds, that’s okay…

As it is, most of us are sad cases. We really need to focus on what is important. There are just too many distractions out there, and immigration is one of them. Or should I say, the poorly designed federal immigration stance is one of them. It benefits no one as it shifts back and forth, depending on who is in office.

While I also do not think it is a state issue, I can understand their involvement. The feds, as with many other issues (Social Security, Medicare Reform, etc) have booted the problems further on down the road. Again. I don’t mind programs that actually work effectively and efficiently. However, as designed, immigration and these other programs are going nowhere fast and dragging the nation down with them. Personally, I think finding Hispanics that are basic law abiding people is a distraction. We should spend our money on keeping terrorists, violent gangs and drug dealers instead.
Conservatives complain about body scanners at airports that invade everyone’s privacy but do not really find terrorists, while insisting we make every illegal immigrant equal to terrorists. Why can we be good thinkers in some things, but stoopid in others? And that is with both major parties!
Common sense is not that common – Voltaire

If I was talking to specific people on this blog, I would have named names. But I’ve certainly sat in church meetings where those feelings were evident, and I’ve certainly participated in blog discussions elsewhere where faithful members were called unbelievers because of their political beliefs or scientific knowledge.

Given some recent discussions on lesser sites on the bloggernacle, I’m pretty sure “knowledge” works just fine. I don’t think, for example, that Henry Eyring’s understanding of chemical decay (explained in his book “Reflections of a Scientist”) was just a claim–in his case, it was knowledge. That didn’t stop others from attacking it on religious grounds. There are certainly some areas of science where “claims” is perhaps more accurate.

Did I say WHERE to keep them? And thanks for calling me a fascist instead of a Nazi. The Hitler terminology gets sooo overused.

Still, however, I’m thinking it is inaccurate. I’m a libertarian. Not sure yet whether I’m fully Austrian-economics or liberal Libertarian, but Libertarian nonetheless. And we are all decidedly against Nazism and fascism of any kind. They are both too big government for us.

Following Tim’s lead from #106 of refocusing the discussion, I often wonder how many of those members who sit on the far Right of the immigration issue have considered that the brother or sister sitting in the pew in front of them are undocumented? How many of them step back in contemplation and realize that their Home Teaching companion or their Stake Relief Society President might be in that same situation? It’s really easy to attack a shibboleth when it is nameless and impersonal. But when you’re faced with the lives of someone you supposedly care about, or at least you should given what Moroni 6 states, how tightly held is that same belief?

After I married my wife my favorite joke for quite some time when I introduced her to new people was to declare that I was married to an illegal alien. Because technically, she really was undocumented for the first 5 years of our marriage as we tried to work through the INS a claim that she really was a US citizen through her Canadian father. Ultimately between 9/11 rule changes and a battle ax of an immigration officer we had to give up and go the green card route.

But the look on people’s faces or their comments when looking upon my very Danish looking wife often gave truth to the perception that many carry that an illegal alien is someone from south of the border and all of the connotations and prejudices that seem to come with that.

The Church has a very good reason to work to find a middle ground since we have many good and wonderful Brothers and Sisters who came to the US seeking a better life. I work with several of these individuals who are struggling in this economy to better themselves and their families due to their undocumented status. At some point you start to wonder how important the legal or illegal status is versus meeting our obligations as human beings and Christians in supporting our fellowman in becoming self reliant.

Alain, I wonder if you considered that the people in front of me at church are not illegal or undocumented. I usually sit behind the same women (they are all pretty), and they’ve lived in CA all their lives. Just sayin’, man!

We used to have Spanish-speaking missionaries in our ward. Some good missionaries. I always wondered if any of them were undocumented. A missionary who had served in our ward right before I arrived was detained by ICE on his way home from serving an honorable mission. What a horrible end to a mission–to think you’re going to see your family and hometown again after serving the Lord for two years, only to be detained at the airport and sent back to a country you don’t consider your home…

My sister served a Spanish-speaking mission in Arizona; she heard plenty of border-crossing stories. My brother and his wife attend a Spanish-speaking branch in Utah. My wife was roommates at BYU with a young woman who intentionally overstayed her visa. I’ve given rides to and otherwise assisted undocumented immigrants in my ward. A great number of fellow Saints in the U.S. are undocumented. They are our brothers and sisters, and deserve our friendship and respect.

B. Russ, an English professor I am not. An advocate of playing with words based on their etymology I am however. Given that Shibboleth can mean an opinion that is commonly believed and repeated but that may be seen as old-fashioned or untrue I felt that while I was definitely stretching the usage it best fit my intended meaning.

1. My comment #91 wasn’t really intended as a swipe at JimBob. I just wanted to type the word “homosexualist”, as I so rarely get to use it in a sentence.

2. I think that JimBob makes some decent points, in a sense. But as others have said, it’s worth giving Mormon liberals a chance to gloat at the spectacle of conservatives uncomfortably writhing as they find themselves at odds with the Church’s political leanings. Personally, I just wish we’d all stop taking the Church’s forays into politics as definitive statements of God’s will generally. Everybody takes everything too seriously.

3. Chris H, I like RATM too, but any band that would put the F-word in the title of one of their songs is obviously too devoid of the Spirit to understand God’s political will. Thus, I know with every fibre of my being that whatever Zack de la Rocha feels strongly about must be false.

#95 Rameumptom, I would reply to your comment about riding my polar bear, especially with all the tempting innuendo implied, but I fear Cynthia will delete it for being irrelevant to the OP, unlike comments 99-122.

If I did reply, I’d probably say something like: “Well, I don’t know. I shall be single in mere days, so it’s theoretically possible. But then there’s the problem of my decision to become a Mormon nun.”

Even if unemployment was only 8% instead of 17%,what compassion can the church give to these displaced by illegal immigrants. As if the unemployed citizens had no children to support. The proverbial fly/s in the ointment of compassion are illegals displacing our jobs, trafficing of drugs and promotion of voters to socialist causes. And the Church(LDS) is approving the whole tube of compassion ,flies and all, not mentioning them or the contravention of federal law which runs counter to “Honoring and sustaining the law”

#141 Rayel said “The proverbial fly/s in the ointment of compassion are illegals displacing our jobs, trafficing of drugs and promotion of voters to socialist causes.” Oh please! I agree that we currently are facing many social problems in the USA connected to illegal immigration, but challenge you on every one of these assertions. The “displacing our jobs” mantra is particularly galling and I am tired of hearing it repeated constantly. Certain sectors of corporate America basically rely on the low paid labor of illegals (who can’t organize and in a weak position to bargain) to maximize profit margins, work that most US citizens won’t do. Next time you buy strawberries or lettuce at the grocery store, thank an illegal Latino immigrant, who probably picked it for very little money to keep your buying price artificially low. If you really want to rake people over the coals for displacing American jobs, how about ranting on the ultra-rich “job creators” captains of industry (Nike, Dell computer, for example), who are doing an exemplary job of shipping American jobs to China. Repeating stuff again and again doesn’t necessarily make it true, even if Rush and Glenn and Sarah are convincing.

re#143: Talk about mantras,like the jobs citizens won’t do, the over 12 million (actually more like 24 million) illegals insinuate themselves into an increasing number of jobs like construction, meat processing, hotel maintenance, janitorial,fast food etc. that citizens WILL DO. But you want to use the agricultural jobs ,which is a small fraction of 12 Billion, maybe one billion, to typify who’s taking jobs citizens don’t want. So, corporations displace our jobs in two ways : cheap foreign workers in their own country underselling our goods and cheap (used-to-be foreigners) importing lower wages into our own land. And yes I will rant about corporations because compassion which is afforded to illegals is compassion (by extension) for the corporations who exploit them and the american people. The H2A agricultural visas already exist to give a migrant worker a wage less exploiting than illegals in farm jobs. So,
if you yourself would be replaced by an illegal(assuming you’re not in agriculture), would you feel as much compassion as the church knowing that you have cheap strawberries?

Rayel,
Some of what you say may work with people who are susceptible to ideas and reasoning of the sort you’re drawing upon, but not me. I am a mindless ideologue who cares not for practical matters when it comes to immigration policy. I just can’t figure out why I should care where a person was born when deciding how to treat them. That’s all.

So,
if you yourself would be replaced by an illegal(assuming you’re not in agriculture), would you feel as much compassion as the church knowing that you have cheap strawberries?

I think that this gets to the heart of the matter–for most of us, immigration is just kind of an abstract issue that doesn’t really, personally affect us on a day to day basis other than, perhaps, indirectly through slightly lower produce prices. In that sense, what you ask is really a fair question, despite what I say in my snarky comments above: How do our opinions change when the abstract effects become personal?

The answer, of course, is that no one really knows how we will react to anything until we’re faced with that decision. As such, I can only hope that through living gospel principles and developing Christ-like attributes to the best of my ability, I would be able to maintain what I sincerely believe to be the proper attitude and course of action. I may fail in that, of course. I hope I wouldn’t, though–I truly, truly hope that my lack of a job in some future day does not cause me to begrudge another man’s job. I’ve been unemployed before, and I know the bitterness that can come along with it, and I know how difficult it is to resist.

RE #144: “And yes I will rant about corporations because compassion which is afforded to illegals is compassion (by extension) for the corporations who exploit them and the american people.” Well, we may have an unbridgable difference in how we view this issue, but I am at least heartened to learn your disdain extends to the large corporations who are exploiting this sad market. But…I’ve lived in the center of the meat-packing industry in the midwest, which is basically staffed by Latino immigrants, presumably including many illegals, and I assure you that U.S. citizens are not lining up to work in those jobs and being displaced. This is what happens when labor unions lose their grip on an industry. And the corporations, much to their chagrin, cannot outsource hotel maid, agricultural worker, meat-packing, and roofing work, so they rely on the third world that is already here.

There are certain realities regarding immigration that we need to face.

1. We have an aging population. As Baby Boomers (I’m on the tale end) retire, there will be fewer workers available in the work force. This means fewer tax payers to pay into things like Social Security and Medicare, two of the biggest Ponzi schemes around, but our current method to take care of the elderly. With young immigrants entering in, we can continue the tax rolls that pay for these items, and create new things for us.

2. Yes, some illegals are involved in crimes. But they are no more involved in major crime than average Americans. I work in the Indiana penal system, and the studies I’ve seen for most states show negligible difference. And if we were to legalize them, so the young could go to college (rather than join gangs), and they could become Americanized, the crime among them would drop even more. 150 years ago, many Americans worried about the Irish, who back then were considered criminals and low life. They took jobs most Americans didn’t want, such as being the police force for many cities. While some ignorants (they had a political party named the Know Nothings) fought them being in our country, most accepted them and they are now part of our American culture.

3. In the past, immigration was the life blood of our nation. People worked their way up in society over generations. They took the opportunities and made the nation a better place. Just look at all the Europeans that converted to the Church and immigrated to Utah. I imagine the Church would have faltered had immigration laws prevented all to come over.

4. The Book of Mormon seems to encourage immigration of people seeking a better life. The Nephites embraced the Ammonites and others, who sought political and religious freedom. These Ammonites ended up being a huge blessing to the Nephites when the following generation of stripling warriors helped defeat the Lamanites (who were led by a wicked Nephite, btw). Later, it would be the Lamanites who would be more righteous, and would be the only thing keeping the wicked Nephites from being utterly destroyed.

There are many other reasons why we need to open up immigration, such as we teach many foreigners in our top notch colleges, only to send them back to China, India and elsewhere, where they compete directly against us. Why not keep them? Also, many of our own people have not developed advanced skills to prepare to compete on the national or global level. To bring immigrants at all levels in would open the door to return to manufacturing here in our own country, creating jobs for all of us.

Ahem….let us not forget that the original illegal immigrants to the area we call the USA were the Europeans. If you want to read a thoroughly documented treatment of this issue and the genocide that it wrought, try “1491” by Charles C. Mann, or Howard Zinn’s chapters on Columbus and early European immigration in “A People’s History of the United States.” Americans of a European ancestry–like me–have a lot of gall complaining about illegal immigrants from south of the border.

re:#151 Do illegals pay social security? Millions of dollars are sent back to Mexico to their families. And their are jobs besides farm jobs that that citizens haven’t done because wages have been depressed by importing them at a cheaper rate. A condition of higher unemployment means that any race, Irish etal takes opportunities from those who first deserve them. Eventually, the citizen would take any job to survive if they hadn’t already been taken by then. If no citizen needed that job, then I wouldn’t care about that aspect of it. But their is a coverup of statistics on unemployment and crime because the corrupt portion of the Republican party(and big bussiness) and the Democratic party to foster the socialist vote. These traitors exploit illegals of any race to undercut the citizen. But the illegal has better than he had and the citizen worse. We speak as though the issue is of employment alone but the illegal garners medical and other social benefits of welfare supported on the backs of the citizen. Stolen identities along with voting privileges make a an illegal vote for more socialist programs. More negatives than the social security they’ve been touted to bolster. I can’t speak for Indiana but what I see here makes those statistic seem to be a sham. But when you look at the Banks and bussiness that support and encourage them and you see how they tabulate the unemployment stats you realize it’s all biased reporting or a whitewash. It’s not that certain conditions never existed for immigration but this aint one of them and if it were it would only be right if it were legal immigration which checks a multitude of problems. The H2a visas are a way that already exist to rightfully moderate this but for the church to approve of a breach of federal law in the form of a state law contravenes it’s own rule of honoring and sustaining the the law. Are You ready to retire pretty soon so that the illegals would be paying your social security or are you young ? If you are young would you mind having your wage reduced or your job replaced by an illegal knowing that ,even though you were out of work, your social security payments would be there some day? Even if you couldn’t get hired? Well, if your young and you think that you are totally deceived if not self deceived. Our country is so negatively funded that you think immigration will fill a blackhole. The world is filled with disinformation about the true dire status of the economy. Forget about all this trash on racism. The principle is that ANY race outside that impairs the conditions of the citizen (which could themselves be any race) they should obey. But the really bad people who are traitors support them.

Chris, I agree with you. Rayel has not offered evidence, but only claimed a conspiracy. Well, this is the same “conspiracy” that has made America what it is. As I see it, unless Rayel is fully Native American, he also is here because of immigration.

Immigration has been the lifeblood of both the nation and the Church. What would have happened to the early Church if British converts did not stream to Nauvoo and Utah? It would have withered away and died. Those who arrived in SLC were often penniless and poverty stricken. Yet they quickly became a strength to Zion and the nation. If it weren’t for those immigrants, I might not be a member of the Church today. And I’m guessing neither would Rayel.

Yes, many Hispanics send money home to Latin America. But they do that because they weren’t able to bring their families here. The immigration statutes are ridiculously difficult to follow and afford. We are allowing it to kill our nation. I’m not sure who will pay for Rayel’s social security in another few decades, when most of America will be aging, like Japan and Europe, because there will be too many retirees and not enough workers. Of course, there may not be enough workers to manage crops, run stores, or businesses that provide him with the comforts he has today. Interestingly, he is enjoying cheap labor from China and elsewhere, when we could keep more of that money here by legalizing immigration and allowing them to work in local manufacturing, mines, etc.

The average wage at a Maquilla in Northern Mexico is something like $7 a day. If Mom and Dad are both working there, family is living on $14 a day. Cost of living in Ciudad Juarez is 80% of the cost of living in El Paso. Want to see immigration reverse? Repeal NAFTA and force American factories to pay the federal minimum wage to workers in their factories outside the country. Ha Ha Ha Ha … Aye yi yi!

I wish I could figure out how all of Rayel’s illegal immigrants are getting all that there free health care. I’m an uninsured citizen and can’t get a doctor to see me even when I have cash in hand. How are these criminal aliens — the ones who are so busy refusing to learn English, dropping anchor babies every five minutes, and otherwise occupying their time with drinking, drugging, beheading, mowing the lawn, and forging papers — managing to work the system better than I can? My hat’s off to them all. They’re brilliant, I tell you, absolutely brilliant.

I work in a food production plant. We have a clean work environment and pay above minimum wage (not much, but a bit). I get 4-6 Hispanic applicants for work a month. I don’t know in the two years I’ve been there that I’ve seen more than a handful of non-Hispanic applicants. So there’s that.

(155) – Gosh. With corrupt politicians, slanted journalists, back-dealing Republicans and Socialist Democrats . . . seems like illegal immigrants are the least of our problems.
Also, if you’re this worried about things that might happen, you can’t be enjoying life as it is now. If it’s all going down the toilet drain, maybe you should at least enjoy life today before the Mexican-Democrat cabal takes over and turns you into an indentured servant and ships you to China to be janitor in a bank of the New World Order. What are you doing wasting your few remaining moments of prosperity arguing on a blog?

re:#157 Yes, legal immigrants complements a society, illegal immigrants introduce negative elements that I’ve already mentioned. Convenient to blur the distinction. The Church did not use British immigrants in Nauvoo or Utah to replace Mormons for a cheaper labor, import drugs, take unfair advantage of their welfare system,or have babies (remember anchor babies) to instate them as a bonafide member. You missed the point of sending money out of country.Their reason for what they do is not a justification for what we allow them of us. If that money is not here it is less money(in the millions) that would stimulate our own economy by recirculation. Secondly, having a job that is not replaced by someone is more important than having a retirement because, because if that person doesn’t work he can collect unemployment anyway. We have high unemployment so it’s the jobs themselves that we need more of not an excess of workers , we already got that and more jobs would pay something into the system. Government debt is what killed us, not a dearth of workers.
#158 is right, NAFTA undercut our wages by overseas workers. Illegal immigration does the same thing from within but as I said before, WE do have Visa programs that allow workers at a wage that doesn’t undercut the American wage called H2A Visas.But that way the farmer has to pay a wage a citizen might apply for so farmers might not like paying that much and illegals are cheaper but hey #159–The employers are the brilliant ones because all you have to do Is tell them you will do the job for half the price and huddle with ten plus other workers in an apartment and the whole chamber of commerce will open up all blessings you mentioned as long as you are in a group. #160/161–well what town do you live in that has such a high Hispanic ratio and what’s that got to do with illegals because being Hispanic does not establish any thing of itself about legal status or immigration in itself.But I can guess what kind of people your company hires in that vein. I guess those stolen social security numbers don’t bother you as long as it isn’t yours and some other guy suffers while your social security gets paid for. We are all indentured servants to a national debt of 14 trillion but like you ,I have more than a few remaining moments to bring out the best of you who are willing to defend selling out their American citizens.

Paragraphs do exist for a reason, but as with other sentence structure, only adds value to the reader, not the writer….

Of course, many would say it also reflects on the writer who does not know the difference between a sentence and a fragment…. Or in this case, a paragraph and run-on forever series of what should be separate paragraphs….

But I can guess what kind of people your company hires in that vein. I guess those stolen social security numbers don’t bother you as long as it isn’t yours and some other guy suffers while your social security gets paid for.

Rayel, “illegal” is an adjective, not a noun. And the perversion of the plural “illegals” smells like the phrase “the Jew” or “the Negro”. Your disrespect in reducing an entire human being to immigration status whispers more loudly to me than the rest of your shouting.

While you’re at it, look up the word “Coolie” before worshiping so exuberantly at the altar of dispassion and fairness in the crafting of our immigration laws.

Well you’re right. My efforts to reason on a subject took my attention away from my grammatical mistakes. So, you guys can dodge my arguments by beating with your grammar sticks. Of the 13 respondents only #176 actually made a sentence directly to the original subject.

There is no greater situation conducive to creating a “Coolie” than to allow illegal immigration. If the employee has a legal H2A visa the employer has less power to exploit him . Those visas are given in jobs which least displace the citizen. So, if that’s worshiping at the alter of fairness,what idol do you worship? Smells like someone’s using the race card. Even the word illegal used erroneously as a noun is non specific. You are making an erroneous implication of race, not me.
To B. Russ: I guess with all that caviling about grammar you won’t need to tell what town you work in or the ratio of Hispanics If I were using ad hominem, I would be attacking you rather than the reason for the problem of your company’s hiring. Although you might be implicated as an employee, it’s the actual policy that called into question. I haven’t called you any names to make my arguments. If you follow that questionable policy, you may be guilty by extension but that’s not ad hominem. You may not be the reason made for the argument but you might be equal to the problem.

Aside from the NAFTA comment, most respondents seem to come from Liberal City. The concern for social security by a respondent is a valid one but compromising citizens jobs and or wages is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Since most of you are more interested in quibbling, I’ll leave you to yourselves!!!

Rayel, we don’t address your “arguments” because they have been made by more coherent commenters and countered six ways from Sunday so many times before. We don’t care to go through the exercise again, especially when it’s a foregone conclusion from the vehemence and pigheadedness of your statements that you won’t be willing to consider our points.

Welcome to the bloggernacle. You’re about four years too late to claim originality or serious attention.

The answer is 10.58%. Yup, a whopping 10.58% of the population is Hispanic. And yet at least 90% of the people who come in looking for jobs are Hispanic and more often than not, first generation.

So, well, your argument kinda falls flat and dead doesn’t it. There are jobs – at decent wages in clean safe environments – that many of the unemployed Anglo-Saxons feel too superior to apply for. Obviously I’m fine with that, but it makes me question any validity to “stealing our jobs”. And without that argument, you’ve got nothing man.

While we’re at it:

numbers don’t bother you as long as it isn’t yours and some other guy suffers

IS ad hominem. No matter how you slice it champ. Don’t act like you’re making cogent, intelligent, dis-impassioned remarks and that you’re above the tactics of others when what you’re doing is throwing sand in a sandbox.

You’ll also notice I never commented on your grammar, and before this comment I never made anything that even resembles ad hominem. So there’s that.

I’ve seen racism in the South, where I lived for 16 years. As a Church leader there, I saw many white members struggle with the idea of blacks joining the Church in the 1980s. They would have preferred not having such “immigrants” join the Church.

The reality is, such an attitude was and is racism and prejudice. So is the attitudes many have towards Hispanics coming to America to experience the American dream. No wonder our America is collapsing: we aren’t fueling it with new blood!

We have a nation of immigrants. There never was a time when additional immigrants ended up taking away all the jobs. All have become a part of the American fabric, when given the chance. Many look at the short term concerns, rather than the long term providence of immigration. Again, as I mentioned before as evidence, the Church embraced immigrants in Joseph Smith’s time, in Brigham Young’s time, and in the times ever since. The Church’s stance continues in this same vein. It is a strange attitude of nationalism that blinds us to what is the correct way.

What Rayel misses is that his arguments do not explain why we should/shouldn’t allow greater immigration. Making decisions based on emotion does not mean the decision follows correctly. In a free nation, one must allow for freedom to resolve solutions without going to the extreme emotional action.
There’s a good article regarding this at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog:Freedom and Repugnance